I like that they are having the land bridge continue the axis of the Malls down to the lakefront.

Great news about the proposed land bridge, however I'm surprised at the $200 million price tag.  I was under the impression that the land bridge design floated a couple of years ago was in the $75 million range. Perhaps my memory is fuzzy.

1 hour ago, X said:

I like that they are having the land bridge continue the axis of the Malls down to the lakefront.

I find it very aesthetically pleasing as well, but I'm very curious how they plan to make it technically feasible. They would have to go over a rising shoreway in that direction (or move the shoreway, which seems difficult and expensive). If they have to go that high, it seems like it may be difficult to smoothly integrate the land bridge on the north side. 

 

On another note, does anyone know how to interpret the circles, yellow lines, and grayed out regions on the proposal map? I have a few guesses, but nothing solid. 

I am all for the pedestrian bridge, but does anyone actually understand what is going on in this design?  The longer I look at this, the more it doesn't make any sense.  

• Why are there huge cutouts (circled in red)?  I understand that the potential new rail station is in the top cutout and the animals are in the middle cutout.  But wouldn't it be better to have these areas as part of the bridge?  Otherwise this "bridge" is still just two chokepoints.  Also, wouldn't the new rail station need to be larger than this anyway?  
• Is the land bridge really going to be above the teal roadway all the way until the north end?  How would this connect anything at all?  Unless they are removing that right of way, then why label the horizontal teal road?  
• Are the teal circles (circled in green) trees?  Why are they in the middle of the road on the left and right sides?  
• What is this "C" shaped area circled in purple?
• Is the yellow a new sidewalk?  If so, does this mean they are planning to eliminate Erieside Ave and part of East 9th?  

 

 

4 minutes ago, smimes said:

I am all for the pedestrian bridge, but does anyone actually understand what is going on in this design?  The longer I look at this, the more it doesn't make any sense.  

• Why are there huge cutouts (circled in red)?  I understand that the potential new rail station is in the top cutout and the animals are in the middle cutout.  But wouldn't it be better to have these areas as part of the bridge?  Otherwise this "bridge" is still just two chokepoints.  Also, wouldn't the new rail station need to be larger than this anyway?  
• Is the land bridge really going to be above the teal roadway all the way until the north end?  How would this connect anything at all?  Unless they are removing that right of way, then why label the horizontal teal road?  
• Are the teal circles (circled in green) trees?  Why are they in the middle of the road on the left and right sides?  
• What is this "C" shaped area circled in purple?
• Is the yellow a new sidewalk?  If so, does this mean they are planning to eliminate Erieside Ave and part of East 9th?  

 

 

This probably means the plan is to have a new stadium built elsewhere, among a bunch of major changes that would take place down there to accommodate this layout.

I'm not sure how this land bridge version work without seeing it elevations.  I assume it slopes.  The northern terminus looks abrupt and arbitrary.   I do like the central axis to the existing malls.   This 2021 plan somewhat reminds me of the lakefront plan from the 80's

Edited April 13, 20214 yr by dave2017

That is the lakefront plan from the 80s.

What if the quarter center sales tax was extended to pay for this Land Bridge plan?  Expand The Convention Center under the structure and this time include all improvements to the green spaces that will benefit Clevelanders the most.

Edited April 13, 20214 yr by dave2017

May not need to with the light rail station and Amtrak station as part of this. Both/either open up access to significant federal dollars, including $200+ million in federal transit capital dollars awarded to Greater Cleveland in the last two COVID relief laws.

 

Besides, I think the county is eyeing a renewal of the sales tax from the convention center to pay for the new Justice Center (jail and/or courthouse).

18 hours ago, Ethan said:

I find it very aesthetically pleasing as well, but I'm very curious how they plan to make it technically feasible. They would have to go over a rising shoreway in that direction (or move the shoreway, which seems difficult and expensive). If they have to go that high, it seems like it may be difficult to smoothly integrate the land bridge on the north side. 

It would be nice to know what the long term plans are for the shoreway.  The Main Avenue bridge is not going to last much longer.  Does the shoreway get converted to a boulevard?   Seems like it would be a good idea to figure it out soon while Biden is on a spending spree and  re-do the shoreway in conjunction with the land bridge.

 

Edited April 13, 20214 yr by skiwest

27 minutes ago, skiwest said:

It would be nice to know what the long term plans are for the shoreway.  The Main Avenue bridge is not going to last much longer.  Does the shoreway get converted to a boulevard?   Seems like it would be a good idea to figure it out soon while Biden is on a spending spree and  re-do the shoreway in conjunction with the land bridge.

 

There should be an effort to convert the shoreway to a boulevard regardless of the status of the bridge, IMO 

I agree completely. I like the bridge going over the flats, it looks cool, but more importantly, I don't want to add that kind of car traffic to the flats. I'd love to see them turn the exits at E9th and W3rd into intersections though. Same for the near west side. The highway divides the city from the water too much. 

58 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

There should be an effort to convert the shoreway to a boulevard regardless of the status of the bridge, IMO 

 

That's the plan.

New lakefront plans 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/news/2021/04/first-look-cleveland-metroparks-releases-bold-vision-for-remaking-lake-erie-shoreline-with-recycled-river-sediment.html%3foutputType=amp

3 hours ago, Watertiger1962 said:

New lakefront plans 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/news/2021/04/first-look-cleveland-metroparks-releases-bold-vision-for-remaking-lake-erie-shoreline-with-recycled-river-sediment.html%3foutputType=amp

 

Not as good as moving 90 south of Gordon Park, but it's still a nice looking plan.  Looks like will be done in four phases over 15 years.  Public session this Thursday:

***

In an online forum Thursday at 7 p.m., Metroparks will unveil initial plans to use recycled sediment dredged from the bottom of the Cuyahoga River to create roughly 80 acres of parkland between the East 55th Street Marina and Gordon Park. Public comments will be welcome. Go to clevelandmetroparks.com/cheers.  https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/cleveland-metroparks-organization/planning/cleveland-harbor-eastern-embayment-resilience-stud

 

The goal of the project, which could take 15 to 25 years to complete, is to thicken a section of shoreline where Interstate 90 curves so close to the water that the highway had to shut down when hit by 20-foot waves during Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

***

 

I swapped an image:

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 20214 yr by Boomerang_Brian
Swapped one image

I like it a lot.  I would like to see I-90 moved as well, but I don't see anything in that plan that precludes that further down the road.

While I'm disappointed to see that I-90 won't be moved to along the railroad tracks, I'm not surprised. But I am surprised and disappointed there wasn't any planning of a land bridge over the highway to reconnect the two halves of Gordon Park.

It looks like they're planning on improving E. 55th and E. 72nd to be better pedestrian/bike connectors.  Given the land use patterns south of the highway, where would a land bridge make a useful contribution to walkability in line with it's costs.

1 minute ago, X said:

It looks like they're planning on improving E. 55th and E. 72nd to be better pedestrian/bike connectors.  Given the land use patterns south of the highway, where would a land bridge make a useful contribution to walkability in line with it's costs.

 

Should public infrastructure investments be in reaction to development or the instigator of it?

Good point, the question is what happens in that big, blank space where the power plant used to be.  If a land bridge could make that more viable for development, then maybe it would make sense.

I'm on the side of moving I90 south, though with discussion of turning 2 into a boulevard downtown, and 20 reducing speed as it enters Edgewater, why not just make this entire stretch of highway to at least MLK a boulevard? Give the midtown neighborhoods of Cleveland the same access to the lakefront that that the Westside has.

 

Situated between the downtown business district and University Circle employment centers the midtown neighborhoods should be much more vibrant but they're cutoff from the lake and downtown by 90. 

36 minutes ago, X said:

Good point, the question is what happens in that big, blank space where the power plant used to be.  If a land bridge could make that more viable for development, then maybe it would make sense.

 

And supposedly First Energy cleaned up the power plant site after they demo'd it.

19 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

I'm on the side of moving I90 south, though with discussion of turning 2 into a boulevard downtown, and 20 reducing speed as it enters Edgewater, why not just make this entire stretch of highway to at least MLK a boulevard? Give the midtown neighborhoods of Cleveland the same access to the lakefront that that the Westside has.

That stretch is I-90.  Can't make an interstate highway into a boulevard.

3 hours ago, Watertiger1962 said:

New lakefront plans 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/news/2021/04/first-look-cleveland-metroparks-releases-bold-vision-for-remaking-lake-erie-shoreline-with-recycled-river-sediment.html%3foutputType=amp

 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

 

Not as good as moving 90 south of Gordon Park, but it's still a nice looking plan.  Looks like will be done in four phases over 15 years.  Public session this Thursday:

***

In an online forum Thursday at 7 p.m., Metroparks will unveil initial plans to use recycled sediment dredged from the bottom of the Cuyahoga River to create roughly 80 acres of parkland between the East 55th Street Marina and Gordon Park. Public comments will be welcome. Go to clevelandmetroparks.com/cheers.  https://www.clevelandmetroparks.com/about/cleveland-metroparks-organization/planning/cleveland-harbor-eastern-embayment-resilience-stud

 

The goal of the project, which could take 15 to 25 years to complete, is to thicken a section of shoreline where Interstate 90 curves so close to the water that the highway had to shut down when hit by 20-foot waves during Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

***

 

I swapped an image:

 

Be sure to check out the article - quite a few more images (and not paywalled).  I swapped one photo to show the plans for 55th and 72nd, which both look really nice. 

2 minutes ago, skiwest said:

That stretch is I-90.  Can't make an interstate highway into a boulevard.

You can't?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-01/urban-highway-removals-could-get-federal-help

2 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

You can't?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-01/urban-highway-removals-could-get-federal-help

 

FHWA *may* be willing to accept the conversion of some Urban Connector Interstates but not a middle portion of a Mainline cross-country Interstate.

Nice looking plan, but ugggghhhh... I wish it could happen sooner than that timeline.  15 to 25 years?  I remember being excited about the 2004 plan when it first came out and we'll have to wait until past 2040 for this.  That's IF it actually happens.

 

I seem to remember an article (probably from @KJP  a while back) which mentioned using rubber from tires to quickly fill in any man-made islands.  I wonder if planners are aware of this, or if it's even been considered.     

4 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Nice looking plan, but ugggghhhh... I wish it could happen sooner than that timeline.  15 to 25 years?  I remember being excited about the 2004 plan when it first came out and we'll have to wait until past 2040 for this.  That's IF it actually happens.

 

I seem to remember an article (probably from @KJP  a while back) which mentioned using rubber from tires to quickly fill in any man-made islands.  I wonder if planners are aware of this, or if it's even been considered.     

 

Wow! Good memory! I dug through my old files and found the article, from January 2006. It was part 3 of a 3-part series I wrote for Sun Newspapers. Unfortunately, it didn't hold true, including a quote by Bob Stark at the end of the article....

 

            At 54 years old, developer Bob Stark is still relatively young. But, that’s probably not young enough to see his vision through for downtown Cleveland, based on the city’s original 50-year timetable for implementing the lakefront plan. ¶

            A key piece of both the city’s and Stark’s plans is for port facilities to relocate from downtown’s lakefront to a new island built north of Whiskey Island. That would open up nearly 100 acres of prime real estate downtown for a unique mix of high-density housing, retail, offices, public boardwalks, trans-lake ferry terminal, a new Coast Guard command headquarters, a trolley museum and other possible uses. ¶

With those features, Cleveland’s downtown lakefront could become comparable to those in Chicago and Toronto. But few, and especially not Stark, want to wait 50 years for Cleveland to join that exclusive club. They may not have to.¶

            Thanks to an odd mix of river dredgings, discarded tires and concrete, a Hong Kong-based company, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as a willing Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, port operations could start relocating in a matter of years. ¶

            õ û ¶

Each year, tons of sand and other sediment are dredged from the bottom of the navigable portion of the Cuyahoga River to maintain a minimum 24-foot depth for large ships. Every few decades or so, a new dump site, called a confined disposal facility, along the lakefront is selected by the Army Corps of Engineers to deposit the dredgings. Most recently, it has been the northeast corner of Burke Lakefront Airport. ¶

            The Burke site has seven years of capacity remaining. Once it is full, the Corps of Engineers will seek a new disposal location, said Matt Snyder, chief project officer for the Corps’ Ohio Area Office. ¶

Under the city’s lakefront plan, river dredgings were to be used to build the island. Officials assumed it would take up to 50 years for enough dredgings to fill the proposed 125-acre site. But, Gary Failor, who will retire at year’s end as port authority executive director, said a new technology could significantly speed up that timetable, and do so at a lower cost. ¶

Hong Kong-based Earth-Link Technology Enterprises Ltd. takes discarded tires, removes their steel belts, shreds the rubber into chips and heats them in a mixture with concrete or cement recycled from highway projects and building demolitions. Created are solid blocks of porous material called Rubber Soil, which Earth-Link has sold to stabilize slopes, build port sub-surfaces, and apply to other civil engineering projects worldwide. The firm has a U.S. trademark for the manufacturing process.¶

“Our goal is to expedite the island CDF (confined disposal facility), which would be bigger than a CDF normally would be,” said John Carney, the port authority’s incoming board chairman. “The 125 acres we would need for the port could be filled more quickly with that (Rubber Soil) technology.” ¶

Failor noted that dredged river sediment is polluted and must remain in a confined disposal facility until it is cleaned naturally through evaporation and decay over a period of years. It will likely be used in combination with the Rubber Soil or similar material to build the port island, he said.¶

õ û ¶

There’s a hitch to building the entire port island out of Rubber Soil, however. Up to 65 percent of the costs of constructing the port island can be funded through the Army Corps of Engineers, but only if the island has at least a 20-year capacity of accepting dredged material. The Corps prefers a 30-year capacity. Less capacity means a reduced federal funding share. ¶

Snyder said that timeline could be shortened without reducing the federal share by combining disposal at the island with a practice called beach nourishment. Once the river dredgings are cleaned, they are taken to a Lake Erie beach to restore its eroded sand.¶

“Both can be a function of our dredge material management plan,” Snyder said. ¶

When it comes time to seek building the island, Carney said it would be up to the city to make the application to the Army Corps of Engineers for the confined disposal facility and to work with area members of congress on securing federal funds. ¶

Failor said the timeline can also be accelerated by relocating the port’s facilities in stages. For example, the facilities north of Cleveland Browns Stadium, set on land which the port leases from the city, could be moved temporarily farther west toward the Cuyahoga River while the island is being built. And, as sections of the port island are completed, port facilities can be relocated to them. ¶

Carney added that the port authority’s plan to acquire land on Whiskey Island from Cuyahoga County will also help expedite the relocation. ¶

“We have already planned to move the operations of our docks,” he said. “We also have to get part of Whiskey Island and I think that will happen. While Wendy Park (on Whiskey Island) will stay a park, we plan to acquire the land we need from Cuyahoga County by (this) year.” ¶

By spring, port officials said they plan to hire consulting firms to conduct a detailed analysis of relocating the port, including building the port island. More firm cost estimates will be part of the analysis, but a prior estimate by the city suggested the cost could be at least $650 million. That doesn’t take into account using the lower-cost Rubber Soil technology. ¶

City officials said they are eager to see developers make better use of the downtown lakefront. The recently completed lakefront plan shows a mixed-use, high-density neighborhood on that land. Stark’s vision is for even higher densities, and built over the railroad tracks to create a continuous urban grid from Public Square to the water’s edge. ¶

“That’s consistent with the (city’s) lakefront plan,” said Planning Director Bob Brown. ¶

õ û ¶

Not everyone is happy with the proposed site for the relocated port. Ed Hauser, president of Friends of Whiskey Island, wants Whiskey Island to become more of a public park. He contends Burke Lakefront Airport is a better location for the port’s operations, noting that the Burke site is larger and will be available sooner. That could allow downtown’s lakefront to be opened up for development more quickly. ¶

“The (downtown) lakefront is probably going to have some very expensive housing on it,” Hauser said. “Who wants to pay that kind of money to look into the sunset and see an island with steel coils, piles of gravel and cranes on it?”¶

“We can’t move the shaft for the salt mine and we already have an ore dock there, so it makes sense to move the port to them,” Failor countered. “There are also problems with rail and highway access to Burke.”¶

Ward 13 Councilman Joe Cimperman, who represents downtown and chairs council’s Planning Committee, said he favors the underutilized Burke as a site for a lakefront neighborhood. ¶

Stark said he believes Burke will be developed someday, but there is a lot of federal red tape involved in closing an airport. He considers Burke a distraction, preferring to instead stay focused on his downtown vision. ¶

Furthermore, Cleveland’s Planning Commission has approved the location for the port island, said Chris Ronayne, former Mayor Jane Campbell’s chief of staff and planning director. He oversaw the lakefront planning effort for Campbell.¶

“The (Campbell) administration got into some tension early on (with port authority officials) concerning the port site,” Ronayne said. “We had a community dialogue with them and now we have a mutually agreeable opinion.”¶

That shared opinion is to move the port’s operations, and was formalized in a memorandum of understanding between the city and port authority, he said.¶

õ û ¶

Carney says the port authority, which financed $850 million in new development projects since its inception, can play a direct role in making Stark’s plans a reality. Carney, Stark’s partner in the $420 million Crocker Park “lifestyle center” in Westlake, has introduced Stark to the rest of the port authority board as well as to other downtown developers. ¶

But Carney said that partnership puts limitations on what he can do officially as chairman of the port’s board. When Stark was looking for a port authority to help finance the construction of parking decks at Crocker Park, he turned to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority to avoid a conflict of interest with the local port. ¶

“Because he’s been a partner with me, I wouldn’t be able to be involved with any port dealings with him,” he said. “What I’m doing at this point is to put my do-gooder hat on in making the introductions.” ¶

A number of financing options exist for developing the port-owned property. Carney said the port could either sell its downtown land or lease it to developers like Stark, but is leaning toward leasing the land. ¶

            “One of the things we could do is use lease payments to be able to do different things, such as acquiring properties in brownfields and fix them up,” he explained. Brownfields are typically former industrial sites that are polluted, making their re-use as productive land more complicated and expensive. “That’s something the port can do if we had money.” ¶

The port also has constructed office buildings for a single user, with lease payments retiring the construction bonds. Since the port authority is a tax-supported public agency, it often gets a better interest rate on bonds than a private company. ¶

Port financing allows the building’s user to show the building expense on its balance sheet as a lease, rather than as debt. A building’s user then has the option to buy the building. Such a funding mechanism might be considered for the lakefront development, but Carney said Stark or any other developer has yet to make a formal proposal to the port authority. ¶

õ û ¶

Stark said he is confident he can make his vision for downtown a reality, despite its undeniably ambitious scale — tens of thousands of new residents, 6 million square feet of mixed-use residential and office space, plus 1 million square feet of retail. He points to his own record as a reason for his confidence.¶

“I don’t like to speak about things I don’t think can happen,” he said. “I’ve built everything I’ve ever proposed.” ¶

Others share Stark’s optimism of getting things done. ¶

“We will work with Bob Stark and the city to accomplish this sooner rather than later,” Carney pledged. “It’s an exciting development.”¶

“You have to look at the degree of difficulty of things,” said Steve Strnisha, a development consultant to Scott Wolstein’s Flats East Bank project, slated to see construction this year. “We have a port authority that is very willing to move off that (downtown lakefront) property. You have major developers that want to build downtown. This is the best opportunity to repopulate the city.”¶

            “The real opportunity is to have a dynamic harborfront where people live, work and play, along with a modern, consolidated, dynamic port,” Ronayne added.¶

“This plan is executable,” Failor said. “It can be done.”¶

“How do we (Cleveland) compete over the next 100 years?” Stark asked. “We need urban places that give us a sense of connectivity, self-esteem, a feeling of being great, while being individually sensitive at a pedestrian level. It’s about infusing energy. The effect of this will be profound.” ¶

 

###

I actually like this plan more than moving the highway. The highway cuts up the area, and that’s inevitable unless it’s moved far far away. Obviously shifting it down a bit would be an improvement, but you’re still just moving the problem, not fixing it, because you still have to cross the highway to get to the lake.
 

This proposal with the little bay has the potential to create an active greenspace that is unique, certainly from anything we have in Cleveland now, and perhaps in the whole great lakes region. The idea has huge potential for fun events and a dynamic environment. You could have swimming races across the bay, boat concerts that could be watched from all around the bay, etc. The layout is awesome and lends itself to cool things.

 

The highway bisection also doesn’t inherently have to be any worse than lower edgewater. The pedestrian access to edgewater is fine in spite of the shoreway. That area of the shoreway has no stops, and while it’s technically 35 mph, everybody goes 50+. So with a bit of relatively simple pedestrian access improvement, the E55-72 area could be at least edgewater quality in terms of access.
 

If there’s something amazing on the lake to walk or bike to, people will get there even if there’s no land bridge.

^ Moving the Shoreway south combines 2 cuts -- rail line and highway -- into just 1.

 

I like the proposal but I'd like to see the Shoreway moved too.

The most important piece to all of this which isn’t mentioned is Litt’s article is the cost. What’s mentioned is the potential to receive funding from the Biden infrastructure plan. But what if the costs aren’t covered by the plan? Would the Cleveland Port Authority be willing to issue bonds to speed up the process? 
 

if you can’t tell, I’m tired of waiting and seeing plan after plan, year after year. Plans die without funding- and there may be a way to speed this one up with the technology mentioned in @KJP’s article from 2006 (!). Here we are, 15 years later. I’d rather not wait another 15 if there’s a way, and the means, to have it done quicker.

54 minutes ago, KJP said:

“Who wants to pay that kind of money to look into the sunset and see an island with steel coils, piles of gravel and cranes on it?”

Me

1 hour ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

The most important piece to all of this which isn’t mentioned is Litt’s article is the cost. What’s mentioned is the potential to receive funding from the Biden infrastructure plan. But what if the costs aren’t covered by the plan? Would the Cleveland Port Authority be willing to issue bonds to speed up the process? 
 

if you can’t tell, I’m tired of waiting and seeing plan after plan, year after year. Plans die without funding- and there may be a way to speed this one up with the technology mentioned in @KJP’s article from 2006 (!). Here we are, 15 years later. I’d rather not wait another 15 if there’s a way, and the means, to have it done quicker.

This has been in the planning stages far longer than the infrastructure bill. This plan is being pushed by ODOT to protect the highway. SOMETHING is going to happen, and this is the most likely thing. I agree it would be great for it to move faster. I think part of it is since they are using dredging was a part of the shore build up, it takes time to collect sufficient material. 

Don't forget, it took 20 years to create Dike 14. And that was after two freighters were intentionally sunk in the 1960s to protect parts of the area between I-90 and Lake Erie from erosion. If I recall correctly, there are between 5,000 - 8,000 cars dumped in the original landfill in the 1960s as well. 

 

 

EDIT: I just looked it up. The official placement of dredgings from the Cuyahoga River started in 1979 and was supposed to reach capacity in 1992, but the retaining walls were raised to increase capacity. It was full in 1999.

 

SOURCE: https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/433

 

 

Edited April 21, 20214 yr by musky
Additional info

2 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

The most important piece to all of this which isn’t mentioned is Litt’s article is the cost. What’s mentioned is the potential to receive funding from the Biden infrastructure plan. But what if the costs aren’t covered by the plan? Would the Cleveland Port Authority be willing to issue bonds to speed up the process? 
 

if you can’t tell, I’m tired of waiting and seeing plan after plan, year after year. Plans die without funding- and there may be a way to speed this one up with the technology mentioned in @KJP’s article from 2006 (!). Here we are, 15 years later. I’d rather not wait another 15 if there’s a way, and the means, to have it done quicker.

 

I hate the time aspect too, but it seems like most of the reason it will take so long is because the project is doubling as a place to put dredged sediment. It's sort of like killing three birds with one stone (better land use, highway protection, a solution to where to put dredged sediment). The 15 years sounds a bit more palatable if there's at least a reason for it.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Should public infrastructure investments be in reaction to development or the instigator of it?

 

5 hours ago, KJP said:

While I'm disappointed to see that I-90 won't be moved to along the railroad tracks, I'm not surprised. But I am surprised and disappointed there wasn't any planning of a land bridge over the highway to reconnect the two halves of Gordon Park.

Weren't there massive discharge pipes running under I-90 from the power plant to Lake Erie?  Are they gone?  Would there be any way to repurpose those pipes into pedestrian tunnels to provide a quick (maybe temporary) solutions for crossing I-90?   LSD in Chicago also separate the lakefront from the rest of the city but there are many tunnels under The Drive that provide peds and bikers easy access to the waterfront.

2 minutes ago, jbdad2 said:

 

Weren't there massive discharge pipes running under I-90 from the power plant to Lake Erie?  Are they gone?  Would there be any way to repurpose those pipes into pedestrian tunnels to provide a quick (maybe temporary) solutions for crossing I-90?   LSD in Chicago also separate the lakefront from the rest of the city but there are many tunnels under The Drive that provide peds and bikers easy access to the waterfront.

 

There was a discharge "canal" that goes under I90.  This of course would be below lake level, so prone to flooding even if they did drain and repurpose it.  

I like the MetroPark's plan. Especially the convoluted shoreline and the irregular island.  It reminds me of something l thought about after my first visit to Toronto. I was surprised to see the city had island's. l thought that would look great on our lakefront. If nature didn't create them then man could using dredging's from the river. We're already doing that now creating new land at Burke that no one uses. Since we need to dispose of the dredging anyway rather than continuing to create more shoreline why not create something else.

 

I'm sure the engineering is more complicated and more expensive but just consider the positives. ISLANDS! Right off downtown. Recreation, views, water taxi's, restaurants/bars. That is way,way more bang for the buck if we're already creating land anyway. It's an economic multiplier. We're probably spending 80% of the cost to create land along the shoreline right now. Why not spend a little more to create land (islands) that people will actually use. The resultant economic growth will probably pay for the additional cost. It's a no brainer really. 

 

Here's one more reason to do it. I've been boating in Puge Sound, the Chesapeake Bay and the Massachusetts islands and what do they all have that our shoreline doesn't? Something other than a flat boring coast. My dad always had a boat (docked it at Edgewater) and while he loved boating after a few runs back and forth along our shoreline l was bored silly. Same ol' same ol'. We'll always have a boring shoreline but at least some islands off downtown plus the river will maximize our limited assets. 

 

Frankly l think development along the river is our best choice to create something really great. If/when that ever happens, coupled with islands off downtown we could have something quite special. We're already developing. Why not develop in a way that enhances what we already have? 

I agree.  I always thought Toronto was missing something - anything -  that made it something other than a big, anonymous North American city with a lot of glass towers.  Then I went to Centre Island, and said: "this is special."

The new Lake Link bridge is gonna be pretty awesome.

Where is this bridge? Is this the bridge at Wendy Park?

Will this bridge make it possible to walk from Flats West Bank to Wendy Park?

6 minutes ago, simplythis said:

Where is this bridge? Is this the bridge at Wendy Park?

 

1 minute ago, skiwest said:

Will this bridge make it possible to walk from Flats West Bank to Wendy Park?

Yes to both.

 

On 4/22/2021 at 2:45 PM, marty15 said:

The new Lake Link bridge is gonna be pretty awesome.

 @marty15That’s the bridge to Wendy Park? Do we have an estimated completion date? Where’s the access point on the other side of Wendy Park?

26 minutes ago, stpats44113 said:

 @marty15That’s the bridge to Wendy Park? Do we have an estimated completion date? Where’s the access point on the other side of Wendy Park?

Completion date? I’m not sure. I would guess within a few weeks. Looks like all that’s left is to pour the concrete deck and approach tie ins. The ramps to each side are already finished. The access point is just across the Willow Street bridge.

Edited April 28, 20214 yr by marty15

6 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

 

Thanks for sharing that tweet, @Ineffable_Matt

 

  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wondered why there’s no significant venue for concerts and events next to the Rock Hall. This might be drifting slightly off topic, but the Rock Hall should feature more than “small”  events in their atrium or on the plaza in front of the building. I’ve always thought it should do more to shatter the concept of the Rock Hall as a museum in the traditional sense. 
 

The other thought - the idea that it takes an “outside” event and perspective to show Clevelanders how cool their lakefront could be. Geez. 

10 minutes ago, CleveFan said:

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve wondered why there’s no significant venue for concerts and events next to the Rock Hall. This might be drifting slightly off topic, but the Rock Hall should feature more than “small”  events in their atrium or on the plaza in front of the building. I’ve always thought it should do more to shatter the concept of the Rock Hall as a museum in the traditional sense. 

 

There is a planned expansion of the Rock Hall and I believe an outdoor concert venue is included. 

Yeah, here's a recent article about the Rock Hall expansion - https://www.architectmagazine.com/project-gallery/rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-expansion_o

Thanks @Luke_S&

@mtnbikefan I had the impression that the addition provided more a “performance space” with a band shell for the plaza area as opposed to a true venue for larger scale events.